If HRC runs in 2016, who should be the pro-worker, pro-peace, pro-justice candidate in the race?

[Ken Burch]

If the outgoing SoS DOES run, she will run as the "status quo" candidate...pro-big war budget, pro-military intervention, pro-"free trade", anti-social justice. We can assume that progressives would be as totally out in the cold in her administration as they were in Bill's-while CEO's will still have luxury boxes at the conventions where she's nominated.

So clearly, there will need to be a candidate that progressives and Democrats can support for the Dem nomination.

Who would you recommend?

Alan Grayson is one possibility...Elizabeth Warren is another...Sherrod Brown might also fit the bill

Name your picks below.

[quinnox]

1. one, I don't think she will run

but will accept it as part of speculation in my answer. I think there will be several fresh faces, people we are not aware of currently, who will fill that role and other roles in 2016.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

2. I like Sherrod Brown!

Great liberal Senator - with a ton of experience to boot! He was one of the youngest legislators in Ohio!

[tblue]

26. I'd say Keith Ellison but that could never happen.

He's the cream of the crop, along with a handful of others.

[JaneyVee]

3. Trumka/Krugman

[Ken Burch]

4. Good suggestion, there. n/t.

[JaneyVee]

5. Serious times call for serious measures.

[Lasher]

6. I would swim a river of snot to help Alan Grayson win.

Insofar as issues are concerned, Hillary is almost the same person as Obama.

[bluestateguy]

7. I need an aspirin

[Ken Burch]

8. ok

You could take one of THESE, too:



You want to back HRC, fine...but you know perfectly well her time in office would be just preserving the status quo...with no progressive gains and at least one war. It would mean beating the Right(which ANY Dem can do in '16)but that's ALL it can mean. Nothing beyond that.

[bluestate10]

88. Does get fucking tiring, doesn't it? Yet people that post shit like this are considered the

"iron" of DU. I need something heavier than aspirin.

[Vincardog]

9. Richards/Warren 2016

[Motown_Johnny]

17. I could get behind that ticket pretty easily

[karynnj]

54. Keith Richards???

Not sure who Richards is. Can you explain?

[Vincardog]

58. Excuse I meant me Gov. Richardson of course Ann Richards would do as well

http://usliberals.about.com/od/stategovernors/p/GovRichardson.htm

[karynnj]

61. I should have guessed

I thought Richardson a horrible candidate in 2008 and he had to withdraw his name as Secretary of Commerce due to some corruption charges.

To me, the fact that he hid the election fraud in NM in 2004 was enough reason to completely reject him. There were Native American areas where the mostly Democratic voters cash ZERO votes for JK all apparently voting just for lower offices - and a few votes for Bush.

[dlwickham]

127. isn't Ann Richards dead?

[Ken Burch]

145. She'd still beat Jeb.

...just sayin'...

[Terra Alta]

10. Elizabeth Warren/Alan Grayson in 2016 and 2020

followed by Grayson/some up-and-coming progressive Democrat in 2024/2028

I like Hillary, but we need some new blood in office. No more dynasties.

[Zorra]

23. +1. That would be a really great administration for this country. nt

[think]

43. That's the ticket

[brooklynite]

11. Depends...do you want to win, or make a statement?

FWIW, Sherrod Brown isn't planning to (I've gotten to know him) and Elizabeth Warren won't be running after just getting elected to the Senate (yes, Obama got elected after four years, but he had prior legislative experience). And other than the fact that you like Alan Grayson for making dramatic statement, what abilities does he have to run the most complex Government in the world?

[LWolf]

14. I define "winning"

as winning the issues.

Electing a candidate that takes the wrong stance on issues when it counts is not a "win."

[brooklynite]

15. ...and electing a Republican who takes the wrong stance isn't a win either...

[LWolf]

16. Of course not.

By definition a Republican is not ever going to be a "win."

The reality is that most presidential elections don't offer an opportunity for a win. It's usually a "lose some/lose more" proposition.

[brooklynite]

18. Or win some....

I believe the glass is half full.

[Ken Burch]

20. OK...so you assume it's HRC or defeat. Sad.

Obviously, you've accepted the "this is a center-right country" meme...which means you've given up.

We're not in 1992 anymore. We don't HAVE to settle for the lesser evil now.

Nominating HRC means giving up on change...probably forever.

Why do you want left Dems to surrender?

Fact is, a HRC presidency will be exactly as right-wing as Bill's was...which automatically makes electing her pointless and automatically dooms her to failure AS president.

[brooklynite]

24. No, and in fact I've already reached out to another prospective candidate...

I Do however, assume that an Alan Grayson candidacy, or someone equally hard-edged, will be a losing proposition. But, show me where I'm wrong.

[Ken Burch]

25. Misunderstood you the. You're just anti-Grayson.

Which other candidate DO you back, then?

[brooklynite]

30. I'm starting with Brian Schweitzer...

probably too "moderate for your taste, but I think there's value promoting the Democratic Party's western Populist side, rather than keep going to the well for Eastern liberals. However if either Hillary or Joe gets into the race, all bets are off.

[Ken Burch]

71. I'm not tied to "Eastern liberals"-I'm from Alaska, for God's sake.

Not sure, though, that building the "Western Populist" side means nominating a candidate from the party's center-right wing(which is where I'd place Schweitzer, though I would back his re-election as governor and could see him as a running-mate possibility, which would force the 'pugs to fight for parts of the Mountain West)...there are a lot of progressive Western Dems, like Peter DeFazio of Oregon, or Raul Grijalva of Arizona)and as for Montanans, I like Tester.

One of the Udalls might be a possibility

Don't assume the West is to the right of the rest of the country, or that we have to get the votes of the rich white Westerners to carry the West.

And I'd still like to see Jim Hightower take a shot at the WH. He's no "Eastern liberal", and he'd force the 'pugs to fight to hold Texas.

[LWolf]

50. When the Democratic President

and his boy Arne Duncan escalate the privatization of public education, and the destruction of my profession, I don't see that glass as half full.

I live the consequences. I know better.

[brooklynite]

51. So you believe that the net result of the President's first term has been a negative?

sad

[LWolf]

120. Not just sad.

It's infuriating.

[bluestate10]

89. That is fucking reality. Until conditions change, that is what we have.

I prefer to take three steps forward every year than spend a decade undoing the damage caused by people voting their fucking "principles" and electing a GW Bush.

[Ken Burch]

94. It's impossible to CHANGE the conditions if we keep nominating centrists.

All centrists nominees do is keep the conditions the same. Can't you see that? Why accept partial political paralysis as the ONLY possible reality? And why accept the notion that most people are inalterably committed to the status quo?

[LWolf]

119. That is "fucking" reality.

Accepting it, I know that "lose some" does not mean any steps forward.

And I have never elected a Republican. THAT is also reality.

[Ken Burch]

137. If you accept "fucking reality", do you need a conceptual condom?

[LWolf]

146. No. I agree with your # 94.

If we keep nominating centrists, desired change isn't going to happen. That's not 3 steps forward.

That's why the "mainstream" candidate never gets my vote in a primary; "mainstream" = "centrist" or worse these days.

That's why I don't consider electing a "mainstream" candidate a win; it's a way to try to prevent any more regression, rather than actually moving forward.

Frankly, that effort, the prevention of regression, doesn't seem to be working.

[Ken Burch]

147. In the end, all "prevention of regression" achieves is the reduction of regression.

We're supposed to be satisfied when the cuts to social services or wages aren't as bad as they could have been.

It's like our party's leaders, even though we've won the last two presidential elections, still don't accept that we have the RIGHT to win...and still can't believe it's actually possible to fight for real gains.

Amazing how long it takes to shake of the psychology, or perhaps even the pathology, of defeat.

[LWolf]

148. Yes. nt

[Ken Burch]

21. HRC isn't the ONLY candidate who can win.

In case you haven't noticed...the GOP is dying these days. We don't have to run "me too" campaigns anymore.

It's not as though the ONLY choices are centrist "free trade" militarism or defeat.

[bluestate10]

90. YOur post is delusional. The majority of americans call themselves moderates.

Those people won't vote for policy they view as too far left - all that is required for a republican to win is for that republican to lie and appear centrist, like GW Bush did in 2000.

[Ken Burch]

95. They may CALL themselves "moderates"

but the policies they are open to are far more progressive, even radical, than that label implies.

To most people, "moderate" simply means sensible. Progressive ideas, even radical ideas, can win if you present them AS sensible.

And that isn't hard to do.

You've embraced a sadly defeatist view of politics and of life, my friend. Free your mind.

[Egalitarian Thug]

149. Blasphemer!

You dare to question the omnipotent wisdom of the corporate losers that claim absolute power over the Democratic Party? Surely the Dark Lord has made a special place in Hell for the likes of you!

[Capt. Obvious]

55. I remember n 2008 when Obama couldn't win

Remember that?

[Ken Burch]

97. That was the basis of the HRC campaign, IIRC

that only a "safe&quot i.e., privileged white)candidate could be electable...Obama was "too dangerous".

If we'd gone with HRC, Palin would be getting sworn in for her second term by now(assuming the planet hadn't been vaporized, of course).

[Hekate]

100. Ooo, ooo! Make a statement! That's the most important thing!

[Godhumor]

12. If either runss, I will be supporting Clinton or Cuomo

If both run, I would probably go with Clinton, but, honestly, I would be thrilled with either.

[Ken Burch]

22. If Cuomo did nothing but austerity as governor, he'll do nothing but austerity as president.

We don't have to settle for "it's enough that it's 'progressives' doing the cuts". It might be different if Andrew cared about the people his dad cared about.

The problem with either Clinton OR Cuomo is that both are path of least resistance candidates...and as such, neither can do anything progressive if elected.

[bluestate10]

92. Budget deficits have to be dealt with. Cuomo is enacting policy that reduce deficits while

protecting critical social services and education. I know that works, my Governor had the same choice after taking over from Mitt Romney. My state has one of the highest growth rates in the country today, the best schools, seniors that prefer to live here rather than Florida, Arizona or any other senior hot spot. Cuomo is doing the tough job of leading and figuring out how to best navigate the daily difficult decisions that a good Governor faces.

[Ken Burch]

93. He won't be to the left of that as president, though, so what good is he?

It's useless to have a presidency based on "it's enough that nice people are doing the cuts"...that isn't a DEMOCRATIC presidency.

If you elect someone who's based their career on austerity, austerity is all they know. They can't be better than that in the White House.

[democrattotheend]

64. Cuomo probably wouldn't run against Clinton

And I would not be inclined to support him either way, since he has aligned himself more with the Republicans in the state senate than with his own party. He went along with their gerrymandering plan and then let them steal the state senate.

[Ken Burch]

99. I still don't understand why most of RFK's kids backed HRC.

She didn't care about ANY of the things Bobby lived and died for-she would never have gone to tarpaper shacks in Mississippi and held dying children in her arms, OR supported Cesar Chavez and the UFW. The dispossessed never mattered to her...they couldn't have mattered to her if she was willing to be on the WalMart B.O.D.

[Hekate]

106. Probably because they are not RFK, hardly remember Dad, and have moved on to the 21st century

Nothing against them, mind you. But Cesar Chavez is also gone.

[Ken Burch]

108. That's one of the saddest posts I've ever read here.

When Bobby's kids no longer want to "seek a newer world", it's a bleak day for all of us.

[Hekate]

109. He was murdered when they were all very young

I'm surprised that any of them want to touch politics in this country with a 10-foot pole.

[Ken Burch]

111. There is that. n/t.

[sadbear]

13. Howard Dean.

[bettyellen]

19. I miss Howard Dean. I liked it when he growled, LOL.

[Recursion]

27. Howard Dean is to the right of both Clinton and Obama on almost every issue

I still don't know how he gets people to swoon like he does, given his actual record as governor.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. 'Cause he talks mean to Republicans. That seems to be enough for some.

[Recursion]

35. Yeah, I'm afraid that's it

[Ter]

44. Well, not all of us here on DU are as liberal as Obama

Some of us are to his right.

[democrattotheend]

63. I assume you don't mean yourself

I am guessing you don't from the Wellstone avatar.

[SidDithers]

28. Start building for that primary challenge now...

this is your chance to get a True Progressive candidate nominated in 2016.

Sid

[Ken Burch]

39. There's no reason to see the ideas as ridiculous.

It would be useless even to HAVE primaries if there was no one running against HRC. IT would be useless to even have the damn convention...no one would watch.

Boredom is not our friend, Sid. Neither is bland centrism.

[JI7]

29. Grayson and Warren are not going to run, there wont be a serious candidate with a realistic

chance of winning running against her.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. Let's just run Obama again.

The right already thinks he's shredded the constitution, so...

[Ken Burch]

40. It'd almost be worth it.

[Drunken Irishman]

42. FUN! FUN! FUN!

It totally would.

Obama2016.com

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. Let's ask Nader, Stein, Roseanne & Rocky about "statement" candidacies.

[Ken Burch]

37. A progressive candidate in the Dem primaries isn't like backing Nader or Roseanne in the fall

You can't seriously be arguing that we should BAR progressives from even seeking the Democratic nomination, for God's sake. It would be useless to hold the White House for a long period of time if we had to perpetually agree to be only slightly different than the Right.

This is NOT a center-right country. Progressive ideas are popular, and the people WANT us to be a party that stands up for the little guy...which means standing AGAINST Wall Street and the Pentagon.

It's not about a "statement"...it's about making the victories MATTER. We don't have to settle for being the centrist wing of the Establishment to win the White House. We don't have to check our soul at the door any longer.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. "Progressive ideas" may be popular, but when you put a face to that progressive....

the whole thing changes. And, NO, I'm not suggesting they shouldn't run. By all means, have at it, but don't be surprised that rank-n-file Dems like myself, don't bite. We've seen that play, and it never ends well.

[Ken Burch]

46. Actually, "that play" hasn't ever been DONE by this party in the fall.

In 1972, McGovern was sabotaged by the party regulars just because he beat them fair and square in the primaries-nobody really even HEARD his platform in the fall. And with the Nixon "dirty tricks" team and the consequences of the China trip, NO Democrat was going to have a real chance in November anyway...Scoop Jackson would likely have lost 49 states too, since there was no appeal for a Democrat running on a "we can do it better" platform on Vietnam(the fact that the war was still going when Nixon was sworn in took the "we can do it better" option away from us from the get-go.

In 1984. Mondale didn't run as a progressive...he ran as a Lutheran deficit hawk an opponent of the nuclear freeze, and a supporter of a hardline economic blockade policy towards Nicaragua-deliberately ignoring the proposal that he base his fall campaign on bringing back industrial jobs to the Northeast and engaging with the massively popular anti-Reagan activist movements across the country. Mondale's defeat was also due to his being Carter's vice-president...It was as if the Republicans had nominated Hoover's vice president against FDR in '36(if they'd been THAT stupid, they'd have lost the OTHER two states that year).

In 1988, Dukakis lost mainly because he was an emotional iceberg who didn't fight back against the smear campaign the 'pugs ran...he'd have lost even if he'd been a death penalty supporter with the way he campaigned.

So no, progressives aren't to blame for Democratic presidential failures of the past. We don't have ANY way to know how we'd do if we nominated an unapologetic progressive and gave that candidate the wholehearted support of the whole party, at least not in the post-FDR era(FDR could fairly be called an unapologetic progressive in 1936, the year of his greatest victory).

Not sure why you hold such a grudge against them, really.

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. Okay, I'll kick your thread one last time. I have no "grudge against" progressives. Hell, I used..

to think I was one myself. My problem is with ideologues, for whom nothing is ever good enough. They do a lot of talking, but can't seem to get things done legislatively. Some here seem to think that if you scream loud enough, the country will fall in behind you. That's just not true, and we've seen plenty of examples of that. There have been countless failed runs by ideologically pure progressives, and it wasn't the "establishment", it was the rank-n-file who rejected them.

Stop making stuff up. It doesn't bolster your case.

[Ken Burch]

66. I didn't make ANYTHING up.

And none of the candidates I or others have suggested in this thread are that sort of ideologue.

The key isn't in having the party make a show of putting the left wing of the party in its place, the key is in showing that the progressive, even at times the radical, approach is, in fact, the most pragmatic and practical solution.

That's why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 got through, in part(yes there were some compromises, but surprisingly few and none of massive consequence)and that's why the Voting Rights Act of '65 got through. It became clear(among other things, through the work of people "screaming loud enough" to get the ideas through. We would never had ended Jim Crow if the matter had been left solely to "insiders". At most, there would probably be a law saying that the drinking fountains and restrooms couldn't be segregated on Tuesdays(holidays excepted).

The inside and the outside do need to work together...I never denied that...but that requires those on the inside to accept that the loud screamers on the outside have a legitimate and valid place in the process, and that those people need to be heard as much as the people who write big campaign checks.

(on edit) to clarify...Grayson was just one name...I wasn't meaning to put him first before all the others in terms of actual preference-he was just the first name to come to mind. It would make more sense to have a senator or a governor(and, if Russ Feingold were to win the Wisc. governor's race in '14, I'd think of him as well).

[bluestate10]

96. I used to be a progressive, abet a pragmatic one.

Over time, I moved to and stayed at Moderate-progressive. I know that I will never go farther right because of how people on the right think.

The thing that turned me off on progressives is what I see as their blind foolishness. No social program to them EVER need reforming, even when there is obvious waste in those programs. No poor person is responsible for their plight in the view of progressives, some evil hand had to strike that person down and hold that person down. I believe in helping anyone that needs help. But I believe that people getting help has a responsibility to work toward providing for themselves by re-training. I believe that we should pay for daycare for a poor working family so that family can use the money saved to provide for better nutrition for their children - but I also believe the family helped has a responsibility to the rest of society to use the help efficiently.

Progressives look misty eyed at issues that I look at with an analytical eye. I wouldn't have voted for Nader in Florida 2000 because Gore was stiff, didn't reach out to me and chose Lieberman because Bush and Cheney were clearly far worst choices. I am not into "making a point" when doing that will potentially do damage to the causes that I believe in.

[Ken Burch]

110. Not a valid characterization of progressives at all-and a slander against most of the poor, btw.

It's not about rejecting the idea that ANY social programs might need changing(the New Left was critiquing the Great Society programs as soon as they were implemented, as far as that goes, and calling for the government to actually listen to the poor and take THEIR wishes into consideration, but that's not what you're interested in-you just want to regiment the poor and to be able to pass moral judgment on them, as if you can claim moral superiority over them simply because, due to quirks of fate, you're doing better than them in this system)it's about opposing the notion of leaving the poor with nothing WHILE the programs are being fixed. Change things, but take care of the powerless WHILE you're changing them.

And, as far as that goes, the overwhelming majority of the poor did NOTHING to cause their own misery...some have made their lives worse, but usually that happened AFTER their conditions were rendered bleak in the fist place. Substance abuse is almost always a last step in the process...it happens AFTER the poor(or anyone else)has had all their hopes crushed by life. The poor don't get high just for the hell of it...it's the anesthetic for the terminal conditions their lives have become.

Most poor people DO want to work, though.

Most poor people with kids DO want to raise them right, and most of them try their best to do so. If previous Democratic administrations had done the decent thing and allowed two-parent families to get public assistance, at least temporarily, there wouldn't have BEEN a significant problem with family breakup among poor families.

Most poor people DO want to better themselves and to get out of poverty.

If progressives(and we aren't a unified lot, by any means)question anything on the matter of poverty, it's the notion that we've somehow reached this Great Moral Reckoning in which MOST of the poor have been proven to be the authors of their own suffering, therefore the "enlightened" middle class is fully justified in lecturing them, regimenting them, and treating them as if they deserve more punishment than help...as if most poor people could easily have made it out of poverty anytime they wanted to, but just deliberately CHOSE to stay poor just to piss off the middle class.

We reject that notion because life isn't like that, and because the poor aren't like that, and because, if we're going to be honest, all of us that aren't, at the moment, poor need to admit that we could end up in that condition at any time, if the right combination of bad breaks came our way.

Expect people to try to be decent and to help themselves, yes...but don't assume that they have to be forced to do those things, or that you are entitled to judge them if they haven't been able to help themselves...because this system is rigged, and getting more and more rigged, against more and more of us.

As Phil Ochs once to aptly put it..."there, but for fortune. go you or go I".

[historylovr]

125. Thank you! Well said. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

124. Your post is what used to separate us from teabaggers. Cheers to you for a most excellent analysis.

[Ken Burch]

138. bashing the poor "used to separate us from teabaggers"? What the hell?

We have to diss the powerless to prove we aren't dogmatic? We have to assert inherent middle-class moral superiority over the downtrodden to avoid being extremists?

Isn't that kind of like saying that, on the school playground, anyone who isn't a bully is a Commie?

[hrmjustin]

34. I am a Hillary supporter, but you make a great point that someone should run from the left of her.

The names you have picked are great names, but i doubt they would run next time unless Hillary is not in the race. Someone will rise to fill this role.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

36. Ugh!

Puh-LEEZE!

[Ken Burch]

38. What does that mean?

Why is the idea of an actual progressive in the 2016 Dem primaries SICKENING to you?

Even if HRC gets nominated, it's not as if she has to be nominated with NO other candidates entering the primaries to have a chance to win. The GOP is going to go into that campaign on the ideological defensive. They won't be able to call the tune on anything anymore.

We are free from HAVING to run a "safe" campaign...can't you see that?

And a "safe" campaign means a useless presidency anyway, so why want that?

[bluestate10]

98. Welcome to DU. We have posters here that don't realistically look at politics,

but, fortunately, we have a much larger number rational people around.

[Ken Burch]

102. A race where HRC was nominated with no one else in the primaries would be passionless.

We'd work for her, but it would be impossible to make a case that anyone should care. And it would be based on the premise that the progressive wing of the party must ALWAYS be kept out in the cold.

There's nothing people in that wing of the party have done that could possibly be THAT unforgiveable.

[Art_from_Ark]

45. I would be very surprised if Hillary Clinton was the nominee in 2016

because of the age she will be in 2016, her stepping down as Secretary of State and withdrawing from political life for the foreseeable future, and her recent health problems.

[davidpdx]

47. You mean if she's nominated

Generally people don't pick their running mates before that. Debating who will be vice-president is pretty insane when you don't even know who the nominee is. People are making the assumption that everyone is going to lay down and on the road and get ran over if she runs.

[Ken Burch]

68. I didn't list those people as running mate possibilities, OR assume she'd be nominated. n/t.

[davidpdx]

83. By asking people for running mates for Clinton, you are assuming she will be the nominee

The nominee, whomever it is generally picks their running mate after they have won the nomination.

Quite a few others have made the same assumption, that only one person can or deserves the nomination.

[Ken Burch]

84. No, that wasn't what I meant, and I probably worded the OP unclearly.

I was talking about other candidates in the primaries...not running mates. It was probably the phrase "run alongside" that caused the confusion. Sorry.

[1-Old-Man]

49. What a bunch of unqualified people you recommend as alternatives

Not one of them has any relevent foreign policy experience - each would be a terrible choice for the job, Has for Hillary for 2016, it will never happen.

[Ken Burch]

74. If HRC didn't run...who else would we have WITH foreign policy experience?

Clark would be getting a bit old for it(besides, being a general isn't necessarily the sort of "foreign policy experience" we should really be leading with...might be nice to show that we can do something with the world BESIDES bomb it).

Who are you thinking of, if I might ask...and, while I can sort of see your point about Grayson, why call Warren and Sherrod Brown unqualified?

[Little Star]

52. Elizabeth Warren. I don't care what she has said about not wanting to..

run for president in her first couple years in the senate. She is exactly the person we need at this point in time. I hope our party forces her to run just like they did Obama when he was hesitant about running too soon.

That said, I would prefer Hillary in 2016 if she is well enough and Elizabeth after that. I do not think Hillary is Bill Clinton! Never have, still don't.

[cali]

126. How can we possibly know that? She has no record.

I'm for seeing how she does in the Senate.

[WI_DEM]

53. Sen Warren should stay in the Senate and Grayson is unrealistic as far as winning

a national race. Sherrod Brown has potential and I would give him solid consideration.

[Ken Burch]

72. Well, despite the order I listed the names, Grayson wasn't actually my FIRST choice

I'd definitely give him the keynote speech at the next convention...and let him say whatever the hell he wanted!

[L0oniX]

57. The corporations will pick the good cop bad cop ...as usual.

[regjoe]

59. Run whoever you want

But any moderate Dem will win the nomination over your picks, and hopefully you will still support that candidate.

[Ken Burch]

67. Don't be so sure...we really aren't "a center-right country"...and no Dem should believe that we are

The people are seeing the truth, and they aren't afraid of change anymore.

We can run without apologizing now.

"looking safe" doesn't help us now. 1992 is over.

[regjoe]

73. The question is

does your "truth" and "change" represent what the majority of the country wants, and so far, past elections show they do not.

But by all means, run a progressive candidate without apologizing and see if moderates in our party are willing to accept him/her.

[Ken Burch]

75. There's a clear mood, a growing mood, against corporate domination of life

And the public are sick of the wars...there's no massive majority for staying in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East.

And the polls have always shown majority support for single-payer.

Now and then, you have to trust the people and not be fixated with putting "safeness" and blandness first.

Besides, where would we be now if FDR had dealt with the Depression the way today's "moderates" would have advised him to? Would "pro-business" economics ever have pulled us out of that(indeed, the reason we had an economic downturn in 1937 was that FDR, for no good reason at all, did what the "pro-business" types demanded and tried to balance the budget)?

It's time to take a risk...if we don't, we'll stagnate, as a party and as a country...and we can't win by stagnating.

[regjoe]

79. Give it a try

IMHO though, you are only seeing what you believe people want and ignoring what they do not want.

Afghanistan will not be a huge factor in the next election.
Polls that show support for single-payer have also shown no support for being taxed to pay for it.
Progressive gun control laws will be rejected by a great many of Democrats.
Unions do not have the support they once had.
Most Americans do not feel "dominated" by corporations. The lack of support for OWS and it fading away is proof of that.

But hey, I could be totally wrong and the country could very well be ready to embrace progressive ideology.
If your progressive candidate wins, then you are correct and the time for change is now.

[Ken Burch]

82. OWS didn't "fade away"...it was crushed by police brutality.

And there's no good reason for any Democrat to be happy about OWS being crushed by state violence(and it's unforgivable that any "liberal" mayors took part in the crushing, since only the right wing and the richest of rich white men gained from it), since nothing positive came from that act of suppression. The story isn't over there, yet, though. The depth of feeling still exists, as does the desire for greater democracy. A new form will be found to carry that fight on.

[regjoe]

123. It faded away due to the lack of support from the people

and the 'movement' will not get anybody elected until the people flood the streets with their support. When that finally happens, your progressive candidate will win in a landslide.

[Ken Burch]

132. You don't know what you're talking about.

You can't expect people to stay in the streets when the cops use brute force.

OWS, Round One, was crushed. There can't be a non-conservative case for gloating about that. Only the rich benefited from the camps being closed by the municipal gestapos. No working people, no poor people, none of the Rainbow gained anything from that night of repression.

[regjoe]

135. I am talking about recent history

And that shows that tens of thousands of progressives protested while hundreds of millions of Americans did not.

The civil rights marches prove that people will "stay in the streets" if their cause has the support.

[JNelson6563]

60. Kucinich/Burch!!1!

You guys could fix all that's wrong with the world, unlike those fascist Democrats!11!

Oy.

[great white snark]

62. Hillary=Bush!

This started early. Oy is right.

[Ken Burch]

70. I didn't say OR imply that HRC=Bush(and you know it)

All I was talking about was what progressive candidate should run if she runs(since she's not progressive).

HRC is a centrist hawk, but she's not the same as Bush.

The point is, we shouldn't have to settle for just 50% different(and no real difference on foreign policy).

Do you have a problem with that assertion?

We aren't "a center-right country", and running under the assumption that we are(which is the only rationale for a HRC candidacy)is the same thing as giving up. Sure, we might win the presidency(although, with the RW haters she has, you'd have to admit, if you're at all honest, that she'd have just as tough time as anybody on the Dem Left), but it would be hollow like it was in the Nineties.

We don't have run self-denial candidacies anymore. We don't have to assume that most of the country is massively to our right.

[Ken Burch]

69. 1)Dennis won't run again. 2)It's not about me. 3)I AM a Democrat

and I didn't call anybody a fascist.

[MineralMan]

65. I see that your thread is getting the approval it deserves.

Feh!

[graham4anything]

76. Waste of taxpayer money for anyone else to run. Especially if the others are in office

why would anyone want to waste millions of dollars like that on a vanity run.

Hillary45, then Michelle46

it takes a Clinton to defeat Jeb Bush(who will be the repub nominee imho)

and why would you wish Elizabeth Warren to stop doing her job(that she didn't even start yet)
It is the single most ludicrist thing I have heard.
She is in the perfect job for what she wants to accomplish.
She would not be able to do that as President, as then it would be someone else's job

so in real world, it makes zero sense

And demographically speaking, raw numbers, and who the party is-
it won't be a white male candidate

and Biden might do a symbolic run to flank for Hillary(and possibly be her VP for at least one term of the two, and set a record and be the alltime #1 in longevity for VP

[Ken Burch]

77. OK, so it doesn't have to be a white male

It doesn't have to be a "pro-business" hawk, either-the voters aren't demanding that we stay in the Middle East indefinitely.

And HRC's world view is essentially that of a privileged white male anyway...she can't identify with the powerless or the poor or the Rainbow in any meaningful sense and support things like "free trade" and letting Wall Street get away with all its mega-graft. When you're in the 1%...you're not GOING to "fight the power&quot the only ones in that class who EVER did were FDR and RFK, and there aren't ever going to be rich rebels like them again). And there can't ever be any such thing as a progressive or feminist war-we already know bombing Iran can't help women in that country, for example).

Why assume that voters want us to run a "more of the same-long live the rich and the generals" campaign? That they want no real alternative to the status quo on foreign policy or economics? That they STILL want labor, the poor and the activists kept totally out in the cold? We're not in 1992 anymore, y'know(and it wasn't an unchallenged conclusion that we had to run on a Great Repentance platform to win then).

And we can assume that HRC won't act on anything Elizabeth Warren believes in...there's no way she could serve on all those corporate boards and still favor any constraints at all on corporate power.

You really need to re-read your post for arrogance...your tone is exactly the sort of thing that would provoke another third-party candidacy(which is the last thing we need). The time when we could assume that the presidential nomination HAD to be reserved for an bland, anti-activist, "don't rock the boats" centrist is gone...and so is the time when it could be legitimate for the establishment of the party to demand that everyone just accept that the nominee has to be a bland centrist hawk IN ADVANCE, which is what you're doing.

We simply aren't "a center-right country" anymore. And we no longer need to run defensive "shut the hell up" campaigns.

[graham4anything]

78. President Obama picked Warren and gave her the victory with his coattails.

makes no sense, plus Jeb would Dukakis her or any other one who wasn't nationally vetted
(and she has never been nationally vetted).
But I disagree with your view on Hillary anyhow.
She will be far to the left of Bill and the times will be easier for her to be further left than Bill.

The single most important thing is not to fracture the party, and the Supreme Court can be 8 to 1 or 9 to 0 by the end of the next 2 terms

but losing in 2016 would ruin that.

I firmly believe that Scalia and Kennedy will leave the court, sooner if they know hillary will run and win, and Thomas will follow Scalia. That is 3 of the 5, meaning 8 to 2 in hillary's first term.

Of course we shall argue this point for the next 3 years good naturedly of course.

[Ken Burch]

81. If she gets in, I hope you're right about her

(It's going to be hard to believe if she insists on keeping the platform rigidly centrist and on making the convention a debate-free zone...we really don't need totally centralized control of what the party does-it doesn't do harm for people to have a real say in the party from below and to sometimes get their way against the insiders).

I'm posting this next paragraph because of your avatar.

The last thing we need is another Dem president who tries to run the party the way LBJ did(Johnson was the Second Lincoln on civil rights, but a total failure on foreign policy)...his way of running this party(and his inflexible determination to keep this country in Vietnam when he knew the war was unwinnable, coupled with his inappropriate and arrogant insistence on forcing Humphrey to make his delegates in Chicago vote for an arrogant "more of the same" war plank in the platform)was what caused our defeat in '68. Had Johnson been renominated, we'd have lost by an even larger margin(Humphrey ONLY made it close because he slightly distanced himself from Johnson's position in late September), since Johnson's personal popularity was much lower than Humphrey or McCarthy's by the time of Chicago and since Johnson had no way of rebuilding his popularity between Chicago and the election.

HRC's hawkisness and her essentially Likudnik views on I/P are the big issues for me...I don't believe we can maintain a massive war budget and still have anything progressive happen at home...the resources aren't there, and there's nothing that can be progressive AND cheap.

BTW, I know that Obama picked Warren and am eternally grateful to him for that. This thread wasn't really about him, for the record.

It can't really harm anything to HAVE a strong candidate to HRC's left in the primaries though...discussion is healthy...debate is healthy...and openness is healthy.

[graham4anything]

85. let's just say I disagree about LBJ, I think it was the people that messed up a winnable race in 68

Had the public not tossed him away over a war anyone (IMHO) would have done the same with
and had he been the candidate all along(before and after Bobby) he would have beaten Nixon.

He knew how to win.
HHH great person, nice guy, but why have 2nd string, when LBJ was stronger?

Bobby would not have entered had LBJ stayed in
Bobby would have then been able to run in 1972.

HHH ran as LBJ lite you are correct, but did not have the political fortitude nor did HHH have the public, being that even if RFK had not been killed, it is not a sure thing who would have been picked by the bosses that year(quite possibly HHH would have been anyhow).

Polls would have been inmaterial in that LBJ vs. Nixon would have been the match we never have gotten, two titans against each other.(Hillary/Jeb would be that race).

but the party was fractured, and i blame the people not the candidates for 1968,1980 and 2000.

A candidate against Hillary(assuming she will win big time), will actually not drive her left, but drive her to pick a VP that the liberals won't be happy with IMHO

that is going to be important.
but you and I wouldn't agree on which person would be better at that.

Would she make further history by having a woman as her VP? A minority?

But we could sure use a LBJ in the senate ramming through and getting votes.
President Obama could have gotten even more had there been one senator to do that for him,
but after Teddy died, no one picked up that role(why I don't know).

[DonCoquixote]

104. You are stepping on a scared cow

There are many people who think "hillary shoulda won!" because she "had experience" and "woulda fought harda for us working class folk!"

Now, what is conveniently forgotten is how the hell someone who helped make Walmart the giant that it is would really connect to working folk, or one of the cheerleaders of outsourcing. Why someone who has so emboldened the Zionists could reach out to Palestine.

Hillary is good at playing and FDR democrat, but neither she nor her husband are one. The sad thing is, her presidency might have pushed along further to the right. Indeed, she might have sold people on ideas that Obama could not.

[Ken Burch]

105. "a scared cow"...I like that...

Yeah, I know you meant something else, but please...DON'T correct it.

[Beacool]

113. "Scared cow", my ass!!!

You two can shove that comment up where the sun doesn't shine.

[Ken Burch]

114. It didn't refer to HRC as a person...

...it's about the idea of her "inevitability".

Neither of us was calling HRC a bovine.

[Beacool]

128. She never considered herself to be inevitable.

She didn't in 2008 and I'm sure that she won't if she chooses to run in 2016. The punditry and media at large ran with that meme and they are starting to do the same now.

[Ken Burch]

131. OK...still, all that I was doing with the "scared cow" thing

(which was Don's-to me anyways-amusing typo on "sacred cow&quot was talking about the idea of an HRC candidacy...it truly wasn't meant, by either of us, as a personal slam on her.

I wouldn't ever call any woman a cow and I doubt Don would either.

Are we ok on that part of it, at least?

[Beacool]

139. Yes, we are.

[DonCoquixote]

129. I will agree

I mean sacred cow,or if you would rather rephrase it, a taboo, a thous shalt not, a thing where people who think that one of the people who helped gut and hobble the left would somehow be an FDR Democrat.

[Blue_In_AK]

80. I personally don't think Hillary will be running. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. John Kitzhaber or Jerry Brown. Just no more 3rd Way Centrist Clintons,

[Ken Burch]

87. Kitzhaber might be the guy.

Hadn't thought of him, but there's a possibility there.

[flvegan]

91. Dennis Fucking Kucinich.

Get it right this time.

Stated with the admission that I would vote for Hillary as the Dem nom if that's how it works out.

[brooklynite]

122. If we have to go down in flames, couldn't we do it with a competent candidate?

Kucinich couldn't win against a more moderate Democrat in a merged district. How's he going to win Ohio (statewide), Florida and Virginia?

[Ken Burch]

140. Dennis probably wouldn't run again anyway.

The party leadership did all it could to marginalize him in 2004 and 2008...he wasn't even allowed to speak at the 2004 convention without letting Kerry's people water his text down to nothing...Dennis Kucinich is a fighter, but he's not a masochist...and even though he did more than anyone else to get former Greens back into the Democratic fold simply by running and standing for the best of what those people fought for, this party will NEVER reward him for that, but will always treat his as a joke and a nuisance. It's sad when a good man is treated with undeserved contempt, but that's the reality here.

We need to look for others to carry on the fight.

[Hekate]

101. If Hillary runs, she will be that person

Thank you.

[postulater]

103. Clearly Russ Feingold.

[marlakay]

107. Brian from Montana

I don't think he is a big war guy, and he seems to be for the little guy.

[Beacool]

112. Hillary is her own person, she's not her husband.

Furthermore, why do you assume that she would run as the "status quo"? I remember the left supporting Obama and look how "progressive" he turned out to be. A tad left of center if that. How many people are being killed by drones? Is Guantanamo still open? This administration has deported more illegal immigrants than under Bush. There's plenty more, but you get the picture. So be careful what you wish for.

[Ken Burch]

115. You're right about Obama...He was not as progressive as he led us to believe.

Don't mistake me for an Obama apologist...especially after all the threads I started here calling for a progressive primary challenger in 2012.

You can't seriously argue that HRC would have ever been to Obama's left as president, though. There's no basis at all to think that, based on what she defended in the Nineties(like her unquestioning approval of the welfare "reform" bill).

Participation in the Clinton Administration would pretty much ensure that anyone who did so(with the possible exception of Robert Reich)would never be a progressive as president. And even with Reich...they might have got to HIM too, if he ever ended up in the White House.

And, in particular, it would have been impossible for HRC to work for ANY progressive policies if she'd been elected on a "keep the troops there" platform on Iraq, since not de-escalating that war at all would have made all liberalism, even the small amount Obama gave us, impossible. Her willingness to consider bombing Iran, a step that could only right-wing, anti-humanist and anti-democratic consequences, would also have been a major impediment to HRC's ability to bring in any progressive possibilities. War and social justice do NOT mix.

HRC may be her own person, but her own person is a hardcore militarist...she had her hands all over the all-but-fascist coup in Honduras, for example, and she's just as obsessed with turning Cuba back into a U.S. colony as Dubya was...her Miami Cuban relatives make sure of that(and the fact that she has those relatives should scare the hell out of you...that's the community that cheered when the Cubana jet full of innocent people was blown up for no reason).

[DonCoquixote]

130. and what makes her liberal

Her policy in the middle east, where she got us into war with Libya?
Her willingness to "obliterate Iran?"
Her support of Outsourcing?
Her records as executive at Wal-mart?

[Geodude]

116. I'm voting for Hillary

I believe that her presidency would be a continuation of the current administration, which I do not mind too much. Besides, nominating a leftist populist for POTUS would not bode well in the general election; Warren barely won Massachusetts!

My ideal ticket, however, would definitely be Paul Krugman / Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[Lil Missy]

117. No other could beat HRC. n/t

[pnwmom]

118. "that progressives and Democrats can support"???

Nice try. Sure, there will be candidates further to the left who will run in the primary and win some votes.

But millions of progressives and Democrats will support Hillary if she runs.

[mmonk]

121. The Green Party candidate will probably be one.

[Ken Burch]

134. The idea is to avoid there being support for a Green candidate.

And the way you do that is to not have the party make a show of leaving its progressive wing out in the cold. The voters aren't demanding that progressive Dems be kept powerless within the Democratic Party.

[mmonk]

142. Tell the party bosses.

[Ken Burch]

143. They DO have trouble getting it.

They still don't get it that they CAUSED the Green Party to get the vote it got.

If you tell people to shut up and know their place...they'll find ANOTHER place.

[Orrex]

133. If she runs, expect the GOP to attack her on the basis of her blood clot

They will at the very least insist that she's not healthy enough to run, and the media will echo their "concerns" 24/7, even when they aren't actually handing the mike to Republican mouthpieces.

[Ken Burch]

144. That, and they'll dredge up Whitewater and exhume Vince Foster all over again. n/t.

[Recursion]

136. HRC (nt)

[JoeyT]

141. I think Brown or Warren might have a shot.

Grayson, as much as I love him I don't think he would.

I certainly think someone more liberal could win an election. Obama won by running to the left and moving right after being elected, so the idea that someone to the left of HRC or Obama can't get elected is just plain silly.

[louis c]

150. The Answer is Hillary.

I've gotten used to winning rather than whining.

I like winning a lot better.

[MrSlayer]

151. We're never going to have one of those again.

The government is bought and owned by the people that are least concerned with labor, peace and justice. I don't know what can be done to rectify it, I suspect there is nothing.

I'll guarantee you this, whomever came out in favor of those things has no chance.